About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
those cuts go in definition and else places, there will be $560 billion cut in the deficit but a 4% cut in the gdp throwing us technically right into recession. is that you're belief if we don't do anything between now and january 1st this country will go into recession, jared? >> it is my belief if we go over the cliff and stay over the cliff. if we're able to hammer out a deal, even if that deal isn't completely stamped and approved on january 1st, there is the possibility of a very temporary trip over the fiscal slope, if you will, and then a reversal. but if we go over the cliff and stay over the cliff i'm pretty sure we'd be looking at recession. >> what about the impact on world markets and money markets in new york, et cetera, et cetera, what would it do about the confidence of the united states' ability to deal with fiscal matters, if we go over the cliff in any way? >> yes. if you look at those markets today you'll see they're pricing in a solution. that's why treasury bills have a yield of 1.6%, historical low. if those markets believed, as i described it, a deal was in the of
not contributed to the deficit, and it shouldn't be part of the discussion. i think the press office said that the other day. we completely agree with that. we should set social security aside. it is solvent for decades, and by simply kicking in the social security tax above $250,000 you can make it solvent for decades more. so that's less of an issue i think in reality than it is in the long time republican desire to attack it whenever they can. remember, this is a party that tried to put it into the stock market just before the crash. >> i remember. >> so they have a long history of going after social security, and we have to, i think, set it aside. medicare is a more complicated problem because we have a health care system in this country that's immensely expensive, way too expensive, somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion a year by most standards, and 40% of that washes back through the federal budget. my position is that if we're going after the old folks on medicare and cutting their benefits, if we're going after the families who have a disabled child who couldn't take care
we're running unsustainable deficits and not dealing with our problem. that's exactly what the -- what the speaker is trying to get at. in terms of this issue, again, look, these are all people i like. these are people i agree with philosophically. i also want to do a good deal for the american taxpayer, including 98% of them. if we can take care of their issue -- i think we'll win the debate. i think they agree with us fundamentally that increases in taxes on anybody cost jobs. that's not good. but as long as it's owe their head their taxes might go up, i think they don't really have time to focus on that debate. again, i just think we ought to take that off. we agree with the president on that. but i respect the speaker. i suspect the spepport the spea >> we'll watch how this plays out. >>> joining me is democratic, barbara boxer wrote in politico today. we're looking there at a picture of, senator, of tip o'neill and reagan signing the bill. >> yes. >> on social security reform. you spoke about an earlier issue in your piece today about how they got together in '82, the
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)